Robert Plant beats Freddie to no1 best singer

Great, post Rocky. I have to add to this discussion:

If you listen to 69-72 live Robert Plant, he puts Freddie Mercury as a live singer in his place. Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from the BBC Sessions and find ANY live performance of Freddie with equal emotion and range. Impossible. Plant sang with no fear in the early days, while Mercury was always careful, even on his best days. How The West Was Won... that album is vintage Plant. I have yet to hear any live album with a more powerful and effective singer, strictly from a vocal quality perspective.

For the most part, Freddie Mercury was not a great live singer. I find that he rarely sang with emotion and creativity, because he was so concerned about being careful with his range, and entertaining the audience. Of course I can't put that against him, as he's among the all-time greatest entertainers in popular music. But I'm just making a point. In terms of studio work, I find Freddie was far superior than he was live, and far superior to Plant, and almost every other rock singer in that regard.

I'm sure many people here will feel automatically compelled to disagree with me on some of these points, but after listening to 250 Queen bootlegs, and often hearing the songs sung the exact same way from night to night, that's the conclusion I can safely make. On the contrary, I have about 25 recordings of Zeppelin from 1973, and there are not two recordings of the a song where Plant sings it the same way. He was a far more original singer, but wasn't as much of an entertainer as Freddie. But Plant's drug use and lack of taking care of his voice soon took its toll, and after 1973, his range and overall voice were never the same.

Sure, Freddie has many incredible moments on albums, but the best singers are the ones who can consistently get the job done night after night on a tour. In most cases, neither Freddie nor Plant belong in this category. A guy like James LaBrie from Dream Theater does. He has been consistently strong on the last few tours, singing better than ever. He is very open about how he has a new vocal trainer, and it has done wonders. Now he just seems to get better with age.

So, clearly I like all three of these singers, and for different reasons. But certainly a singer like James LaBrie is in the same league as Plant and Mercury. He's just not in the mainstream, so he has not received the recognition he deserves.

Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's.

Anyone care to mention some others singers? How about some serious Paul McCartney and Bono enthusiasts?

Sir GH,

Great post. Robert Plant came on very strong in 1969, and because I didn't care too much for Zep's music and didn't listen that closely, I never noticed the deterioration in his voice in the mid 1970's. But I did notice that Freddie's voice got progressively better over the years. The vocals on the Innuendo and Made in Heaven albums were amazing.

I suspect there are quite a few other singers out there who haven't been noticed because they haven't found a hit or following yet. Or maybe it's because so much of the music today is crap. But with some good songs, great singers will get noticed.

"Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's.

Anyone care to mention some others singers? How about some serious Paul McCartney and Bono enthusiasts?"

I haven't had the opportunity to listen to Paul Rodgers with Queen except in some low-quality bootleg stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing them in LA in October.

While I was a big fan of the Beatles, I never considered Paul McCartney to be a great singer. In fact, I preferred John Lennon's voice, which was more soulful and had the ability to cut through. McCartney was a great songwriter, and was unusually good on harmonies. I hope this isn't too irreverant for this board, but from my perspective McCartney and Brian May are in the same class as vocalists -- okay, and great back-up singers/harmonizers, but shouldn't be the lead singers in ANY band.

As far as Bono -- a much better singer than McCartney, but not anywhere close to Robert Plant or Freddie Mercury. And I put Elton John at the same level as Bono.

Gunpowder Gelatine wrote:

I think both are great singers but Freddie would probably have been honored to be second to Robert Plant - wasn't he always a big Zeppelin fan?

That's true. They've mentioned Zepp as an influence quite a few times, and it shows on "Innuendo" and "Son and Daughter."

I think they are both great singers. IMO they are different and can't be compared.

Bob: Paul Rodgers came in 3th, so he IS also recognized as being an excellent singer.
Full list is here: http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=39084

willem-jan wrote:

Bob: Paul Rodgers came in 3th, so he IS also recognized as being an excellent singer.
Full list is here: http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=39084

Woah?! Where's John? seems he truly is the invisible man =-(

RockyRacoon and Sir GH: great posts!!

I like your analysis. I too have followed Queen and Lez Zeppelin since the early 70s and they are my two all time favourite bands.

Robbie was an incredible singer in his younger days, particularly live. I would definately agree that if we take the best of their live careers, Robbie was a much better live singer than Freddie, and conversely, no-one on the planet was a better rock singer in the studio than Freddie. They each had their areas of strength. The ad libbing, blues jam driven nature of Zep's live shows gave Percy a fantastic arena in which to flex his vocal prowess. Queen were a great live band, but they were even better on record. Led Zeppelin were great on record, but even better live (on a good night).

I saw Plant a half dozen years back in Copenhagen, and he was even then in very good form. From what I've heard with the new album, he's finding material that suits his voice and really hitting his pensioner straps :)

The only rock singer who comes close to these guys for me was Jeff Buckley. Live he was not so crash hot from what I've heard, but in the studio he had an incredible mix of range and emotion that is sorely lacking in contemporary rock.

It all depends on what you want to judge. Showmanship, emotion, range...

I like Paul Rodgers a lot, and while I think he has taken a long time to feel relaxed singing these songs, he's starting to get there, and if they do some new material watch out. The man is real class.

Did ANYONE else find it funny that SLASH was voted as a better Guitar player over Brian?

In keeping with the thread, I was never a Zep fan, but I do enjoy Plants singing.

and hey Rocky.. watch me pull a rabb..... ooops, I mean, That is great you saw Queen in Chicago in 1980, I have a bootleg of that show and it is incredible.. I saw them the NEXT night in Detroit Michigan and they just BLEW ME AWAY.. Freddie actually spoke to me... I kept yelling for Another One Bites The Dust after each song.. finally he looked at me and said, "We'll do that one later darling..." we were front row just slightly off center stage more to Brians side.

Cozy Powell better than roger aswell wot u think of that

Along with Queen, Led Zepplin are one of my all time favourite bands

I dont think it's fair to make comparisons between Percy and Freddie as they were 2 unique singers, both of whom were incomparable in what they did

In short 2 of the greatest rock vocalists ever, but in different ways.


Bono? C'mon, get a grip!!

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

For the most part, Freddie Mercury was not a great live singer. I find that he rarely sang with emotion and creativity, because he was so concerned about being careful with his range, and entertaining the audience.

Let's bring bring some other singers into this discussion. How about Paul Rodgers? I can only judge his live stuff from night to night from his tour with Queen, and here's what I've concluded: As long as he's healthy, I think he is a better and far more creative live singer than Freddie was. He is just dripping with emotion, and I'm actually starting to prefer some of his renditions of Queen songs over Freddie's.

I agree with a lot of your comments Bob but with that one I strongly disagree, and I think it's very wrong to say that Freddie wasn't a good live singer. One could argue that Pele wasn't the best footie player, but you can't just go and say that he wasn't really good. There are for sure many performances by Freddie that were better than others, but that's because while going through heavy touring a singer's voice is sensitive to loss of quality, and it'd be nearly impossible for Freddie or any other singer to keep his voice in perfect shape through a whole year of touring.
The only thing that I'd have to criticize about Freddie was the fact that his heavy smoking made his voice more fragile, although he claims he didn't give up smoking because he wanted his voice to become huskier and less smooth and mellow.

BG.Innuendo wrote:

Robert Plant is good but better than Freddie...NO!The only one who can compare with Freddie is Bono but he isn't as glorious as our favourite vocals!

You need to check in at the funny farm mate. Bono represents everything that is wrong with Rock music these days.